Forest and Mote

2009-02-09T23:04:00.000-08:00

Okay; I give up. I did not enter the hyperlink to Darwin's blog posting correctly. I'll figure out the error later. Meanwhile here's the address:

http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/

--Logeyed Roman

2009-02-09T22:52:00.000-08:00

This award has been on my mind for some time, and this blog posting by my friend Darwin Catholic clearly calls for action

The Logeyed Roman's "Logectomy" award will be given to individuals who display the kind of self-criticism which embodies the fundamental principal of the Forest and Mote blog: That humble and full self-criticism is an absolute prerequiste of being able to effectively criticize others. It establishes one's credibility, of course; but most fundamentally it keeps one humble; it keeps the eye clear so that we can see to remove the mote in our neighbor's eye.

A good example of conduct which will NOT merit a Logectomy Award is President Obama's "I screwed up" remarks about his naive, irresponsible and foolish appointment choices. Our President, alas, was manifestly being both a lawyer AND a politician (what a combination) doing damage control rather than trying to come totally clean and make sure he fully acknowledges and admits his own fault.

Perhaps I'll design some kind of virtual trophy or something in the future. If so, Darwin will certainly get the first one.

Meanwhile, I declare Darwin Catholic to be the very first recipient of the Official Forest and Mote Logectomy Award!

--Logeyed Roman

2008-08-29T01:11:00.000-07:00

Kamikaze Democrats

Well. I hereby stick my neck out once more and reiterate my earlier prediction: McCain will be our President.

I don't have time for a longer post. But the Democrats are self-destructing right on schedule.

This was "the youngest and most diverse Democratic convention in history" said one news story. They did not mention that the reason is that so many of the normal attendees had bailed in disgust, especially a huge number who still favored Hillary, were off pouting rather than being good sports, and they had to sell tickets to whatever was available. The "young, diverse" crowd was there because they had to allow a huge number of the less experienced and less well-connected in or have a whole lot of empty seats show on television. I mean, empty seats all over the place would not look like this united, organized, winning party, would it?

And Bill Clinton keeps on making ambiguous remarks, ham-handed insinuation and innuendo taking place of his former political finesse. Hillary goes through the motions in public, but I'm expecting a melt-down any time. A public one would be perfect. It could happen.

She and Bill have massively overplayed their hands. Hillary and Obama have flip-flopped like fish out of water and on crack. Obama in particular, raised in his liberal privileged bubble, still hasn't figured out how unprepared he is and tried to correct it. He should have come up with a platform months ago. But he thinks he can maneuver like an ambitious weasel in an ivy league environment. He knows nothing else.

If the Republicans were real statesmen and not a bunch of political weenies themselves, they would sweep the thing. As it is, the Democrats baling wire and duct tape is giving way. The race is fairly close, but forget the polls, folks; McCain is the front runner, and has been all along.

In nine weeks or so we'll find out if I get to eat my words. If I were a betting man I'd put seven to five on McCain.

LogEyed Roman

2008-04-21T23:54:00.001-07:00

The Coming Whirlwind: Slavery, the Civil War and Abortion

To me, it is clear that we are headed for a terrible collision in this country. I do not mean a civil war in the shooting war sense. But I have studied the American Civil War for decades and the parallels with the last years before 1861 are uncanny.

Then, the “presenting problem” was slavery. It was the “indigestible lump” which precluded a nonmilitary settlement. The South, driven by the dedicated white supremicists and those who profited from slavery (the two groups were not entirely overlapping; the free Black population of New Orleans were overwhelmingly pro-Confederate to the end of the war, because their relatively high standard of living depended on Negro slavery), was adamant that slavery not be challenged. This ended up requiring that it be actively supported by the North as increasing commerce and communication made the issue harder to ignore (especially since it got easier for slaves to escape and easier for the Underground Railroad to help them). People on both sides who had in earlier decades ignored the issue or “agreed to disagree” found that this evasion was no longer possible. The pro-slavery people found their position increasingly threatened, and the North found themselves increasingly pressured to support slavery. Even those who were lukewarm or indifferent to slavery generally hated the increasing incidence of fugitive slaves in the North being forcibly abducted and returned to slavery, and they deeply resented the political bullying the South used more and more to force the Federal government to support their position. (Sounding familiar yet?)

One characteristic of the Southern position was their absolute refusal to countenance any suggestion that black people were not inferior to whites. During the war, one leader even admitted that he opposed arming slaves to fight for the Confederacy in return for their freedom on the grounds that if they could fight like white men, it would disprove their whole theory of slavery! (NOW does it sound familiar?)

Bruce Catton, great historian of the Civil War, pointed out that in fact the issue was race, and slavery was just the most obvious and pernicious symptom.

The issue facing us today is the Culture of Life vs. the Culture of Death. The humanity of unborn children is largely denied by those in the Culture of Death; sometimes it is referred to as a vague possibility, but always with some kind of rationalization in favor of continuing “therapeutic” abortion. Just recently, Hillary Clinton conceded the “potential” for life begins at conception, and she’s not sure when life begins, and since it would be so hard to enforce, etc. The abortion issue is the biggest and most immediately horrendous symptom of a much more pervasive problem. Euthanesia is back; eugenics is making a stealthy but very strong comeback; public tolerance and even support for anti-family activities such as extreme promiscuity, “alternative” non-marriage living arrangements, and sexual activity other than normal monogamous heterosexuality, are, in C.S. Lewis’ term, greater than they have been since Pagan times.

Just as with slavery, the abortion issue is bringing this increasingly into the open, and it’s causing increasing polarization. There are shameful defections from what should be the pro-life community, and courageous stands taken from the Left, where more and more individuals take a stand against their lifelong community as it moves further into the abyss.

In the Civil War, seven of the eleven states in the Confederacy had regiments raised who went and joined the Union! And there was a political organization in the South of pro-Union civilian men, 25,000 strong. With typical Southern courage, they were public; they did not hide their identities.

Through the 1850s, as tensions and violent incidents spiraled out of control, very few people, North or South, really foresaw the terrible abyss the country was going to pass through. To me, it really looks like we are heading for another explosion. We have no armed sections that can take sides and fight a civil war in open military terms. But just since Roe vs. Wade, we have murdered a number of our own countrymen similar to the total number of Africans taken or born into slavery before 1850 in America.

The pro abortion people have no more choice than the pro slavery people did; they must continue to push forward to make the “right” to abortion as secure as possible. They must fight dissent more and more; they must write more and more laws, put more and more pro-abortion education programs into place. To do otherwise would be to begin to admit doubt about the position they have taken so firmly for so long. And any doubt at all would call the whole edifice into question. They must even make common cause with the rest of the “progressive” forces of the Culture of Death; with advocates of euthanasia, supporters of non-marriage relationships, birth control, the lot.

Their opponents are just not going to go for this. There are very active pro-life people, and a larger group who are increasingly waking up to the intrusions in their lives, and whose patience is wearing thinner and thinner.

My crystal ball gets cloudy when I try to be any more specific. But what I do see is things getting worse before they get better. And it's going to be far worse than most people expect or want.

The slavery supporters in the South never dreamed they would bring about such a holocaust. The pro abortion people had no idea that Roe v. Wade would kick off such a groundswell of awakening social and political conscience in America. The entire Left was shocked at its power in 2004. They have labelled it "The Religious Right" to help them regard it as mindlessly backward and hateful. And they still have no idea what they're dealing with. People's underage daughters can be talked into abortions without their parents even being told of it. There is a very long list of hamhanded, bullying moves that remind me of the South in the 1850s trying to shore up slavery.

It didn't work for them either.

Sincerely,

LogEyed_Roman

2008-04-21T00:17:00.000-07:00

Check out "The Hillary Deathwatch", here: http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/

Here is the text of an email I sent them a couple days ago:

Dear Hillary Deathwatch: ...I won't tell you how long I've been making my prediction except that I began in 2007. Here it is: McCain will be President, courtesy of Hillary Clinton. Here's why: Hillary will destroy her campaign. If she has the best circumatances and support and funding, etc., she will sieze defeat from the jaws of victory. She will do this with such venom, violence, and lack of impulse control, and hang on so long, that she will devastate Obama's campaign. Obama's campaign is already weak, since he's a lightweight who has no staying power in any case. His campaign would fizzle in any case. Hillary will finish it off. The reason for all this is that Hillary is a classic "control freak". These people show their compulsive side all along, though they can often go for years with a great show of plausibility, often getting a lot done and fooling people for a long time. But they all eventually fall into a pattern of episodes of paranoia, making ham-handed and shocking attacks, treating everyone around them as a conniving enemy to be outmaneuvered. Yes, they eventually think everyone around them is like they are. At the far left of the bell curve for control freaks is, say, a clinging mother who tries too hard to control her grown children and has irrational temper tantrums. Hillary is somewhere near the center of the bell. At the far right end are the career criminals who can be charming and convincing for a while, then end up seeing even their own lawyers as out to get them. They lose their plausible veneer and show their true appalling colors. ...It's been clear to me for years that Hillary is in this category, and she was already having trouble controlling it during Bill's presidency. Now the episodes are coming fast and furious, during what is arguably the most important enterprise of her life. I predict that before the end of April she will do at least one more really big mistake; another lie (control freaks end up believing they can convince anybody of whatever they want) or another senseless attack on Obama or someone else. I predict that before the end of June, if she is still campaigning, she will have done something more extreme and shocking than she has ever done; perhaps even a public hate rant that makes the drunken Mel Gibson look like Mother Teresa. Oh, and as a friend of mine remarked, she will give up on her campaign when they pry it from her cold, dead fingers. She will be very stupid about not giving up. If she gave up now and supported Obama, he would have a chance, and she would have the political good will and capital to make another try at the Oval Office. But her "control" syndrome has gone around the bend now, and she will not do so. There are my prophecies, so to speak. Let's see how many of them come true!

LogEyed_Roman

Now I know I'm sticking my neck out on this, and anything can happen. Yet I am convinced this is by far the likliest outcome. Senator Clinton's character really seems to me the most important factor, considering that otherwise none of the candidates is a shoe-in.

Perhaps later I will go into more detail about why I have come up with such a confident, definite opinion of her character.

I, as you might guess, an not on her side (as a candidate, anyway). So here's for some logectomy:

I, and all the rest of us who dislike her as a public figure, have to be on guard against the very malice and the "control" impulse that can give a little too much enjoyment to watching those we dislike or even disagree with go down. I am not at all backing down from my opinion of her character, but we are all sinners too. Especially me. A certain satisfaction; even a relief when we see someone with alarming and disturbing tendencies to attack those she disagrees with is exposed for what she is and perhaps thwarted in getting power she can't be trusted with--that's fine. But if we let ourselves be overly malicious, we might as well just turn around and join a Hillary Wannabee club.

A Christian writer recently published an article asking evangelicals to tone down their hate language about here. "Mrs. Satan"; "Hitlery" are a couple of examples. I have to confess that each of those tickled me when I heard it, and I could feel the temptation to use them extensively. That would be wrong. It would be a sin, and if allowed to continue far enough would surely cause us to bring about as much or more of the hateful actions in society we fear Hillary Clinton would produce.

So let us remain firm in our honest opinions of someone's faults, but not give in to the temptation to hatred and moral superiority, lest we become worse than they are.

LogEyed Roman

2008-03-27T23:04:00.000-07:00

Tibetans and Pontius Pilate

Brothers and sisters in Christ, and anybody else reading this, I am ashamed of myself. I am ashamed of my country, and of my Western culture.

Rod Little, in an article in the Spectator U.K. (link below), speaks of how pathetic the Tibetan monks are, hoping that someone will come to their aid. In fact, we seem rather to all be trying to out-Pilate Pontius Pilate.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/563886/pity-the-monks-of-tibet-who-dare-to-hope-that-anyone-will-come-to-their-aid.thtml

Basically, Little complains bitterly that his entire government seems to have dropped any real criticism of China’s horrendous human rights record, which they continue to build on enthusiastically, just to do business and avoid trouble.

The amount of attention, such as it is, which China has gotten for the Tibetan protests has already shaken up the regime profoundly. Serious challenges from the free world (yes, I still use that “obsolete” term) would put terrible pressure on them. In fact their tremendous economic growth is fragile and cannot endure any serious publicity problem.

If governments and media in the free world joined together vigorously castigating China and lavishly publicizing its human rights violations, public opinion and therefore business would surely follow. The economic threat would be huge, and also the loss of face in front of the world (yes, they care about that; nations always have, China more than most, whether we want to admit it or not).

If crushing Tibet ceases to be in their interest, they will cease doing it; it’s that simple. Alexander Solzhenitsyn vigorously criticized Western leaders and media who tried to say that the totalitarian regimes don’t care about Western public opinion. They are very sensitive to it. They always have economic interests which are affected by such opinion. Moreover, they do in fact want to be esteemed members of the global community and hate it when they are ostracized.

Of course coming to the rescue of Tibet has to be handled with diplomacy as well. But if they feel sufficient pressure, they will be open to skillful approaches which offer compromises so that easing up on the Tibetans can be done while still protecting their security. Offering face-saving solutions would be vital, especially to Chinese, but it certainly could be done.

But it will never happen if they don’t think they have to. And why should they? The government and media establishments in the free world are turning their backs on all the victims of Chinese totalitarianism; and moreover are doing so with mealy-mouthed rationalizations that bring them right up with Pilate.

I might as well start sending them little packets of moist towelettes so they can wash their hands of the Tibetans on camera.

Of course, I’d have to save a few for myself. What have I ever done, aside from the—so far—rather trivial effort of this blog entry? When I really sacrifice regularly to research and compose for this blog, and do whatever else I can do to publicly support the causes I believe in, I’m as bad as they are.

I pray the Rosary (not enough). I have a “seven sorrows” rosary. I read that Catholics have always come up with their own private devotions to supplement the various ones enjoined by the Church, including for the Rosary. With this encouragement, and seeing the enormous variety of Rosary devotions in books and on the Internet, I came up with some of my own. One is what I call my “Penitential Rosary”; the Seven Dark Mysteries. One of these is “Pilate washes his hands.” In this one, I ask to be reminded of all the times I have turned my back on some injustice, even in my own heart (I have never been Governor of anything), and put the blame off on someone else. Like Pilate.

In this prayer, I pray for forgiveness; I pray that when I see others turn their backs that I always remember that I have been the same kind of sinner and am in no position to feel superior. Which is a very bad habit of mine; may God forgive me.

So. Can we please not turn our backs on the Tibetans too quickly? I have taken the time to write this blog entry. It’s little enough, but it’s a start. And I hope I have made it sufficiently clear that in fact I am a very big offender in this area myself.

My guiding principle in this weblog is that the log in my own eye has priority over the mote in my neighbor's.

Please pray for the Tibetans. And if you can do anything else, no matter how little, please consider doing it. In fact I believe I will write some elected officials—the usual list.

Any other ideas of what us ordinary slobs can do?

Oh, and please pray for me as well. I need it too.

Sadly yours,

LogEyed Roman

2007-12-22T21:45:00.000-08:00

Is God Cruel? Comfort, Agony and Peace

Here’s a link to an article in the “California Catholic Daily” on this subject. It’s titled “God is not nice. The truth hurts.” http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=c3078848-dba3-4770-b339-988ef4004819

One distinction: The author uses “Nice” to refer to the principle, which many people today have fallen into, that not hurting people’s feelings is the very most important thing. The problem is that this too often slips into withholding the truth because people might not like to hear it. He points out that the excessive desire to be “nice” can lead to unkindness. It may seem “nice” to withhold bad news about a terminal disease from someone. But it’s kind, he says, and I agree, to tell someone the truth. It may hurt someone to have their hopes dashed, but if these are false hopes, the sooner they are relieved of them the better.

I just learned today that a good friend’s father has a grave neurological disease; the kind which you can’t treat and which generally means an early death after a long deterioration of your quality of life. This is a good man and he’s still below retirement age. My friend has many obligations of her own and is not able to do what every fiber of her being calls for: Go and be with her father, helping him, supporting her mother, comforting him as best she can and being with him as much as she can.

This is a family of devout Catholics, and they all believe in the love of God and the redeeming nature of suffering. That does not mean it is not painful. Certainly the father would prefer to live a full natural lifespan without such deterioration of his quality of life. With every fiber of HIS being.

I know of other examples, but I’m sure my readers can supply more than enough of their own.

So what, exactly, is going on here? God is supposed to be good and all-powerful. As the ancient question goes, How could He do this? Or allow it? And how are we supposed to deal with it? If God is not going to stop this, why do we still suffer so much? Where is this peace and comfort they go on and on about?

Okay. I want to deal with those two words, “peace” and “comfort”; and another word: “Agony”.

Take, for instance, “peace.” At the Last Supper, Our Lord said: "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.

What, “Do not let your heart be troubled”??? That’s confusing to us these days. And can lead, yes, to cruelty and the appearance thereof, including cruelty perpetrated wrongly in God’s name.

Okay; I will give another example.

Many years ago I attended a memorial service for a 15-year-old boy who died in a traffic accident. The minister was a Protestant, but God bless him, He was not “nice”.

He began his homily by telling us that his father died when he was eight. The family got a number of callers. He spoke of the pain inflicted by the “pious liars” who came by and told them not to feel bad, because God surely knew what was best, and therefore took his daddy away for a good reason, though we might understand it. So he should feel good about it and not be sad.

Yes, the cruelty of speaking to the family this way is appalling. We don’t know why God allows dreadful things like the premature death of a parent, or of a 15-year-old boy in a traffic accident. Now I suppose there are some people who don’t know better; who have been taught that this is the case, and are just trying to do what they believe is best. That does not diminish the magnitude of the error at all, and the reduced culpability of the perpetrators does not diminish the cruelty of their conduct.

The minister continued by saying that the visitors he remembered with gratitude were the ones “who bore with us.” Who did not try to diminish, reduce, or minimize any of the pain at all, but made it clear that they were there for them no matter what.

I had never fully understood the significance of the expression “to bear with” somebody.

So what does all this have to do with “peace”? I’m glad you asked.

In a bible study a few years ago, we got to the part of the Mass where we all make the peace offering to one another, and someone brought up the question: Just what is this “peace” we are offering? What is the particular peace of Jesus Christ, which is not the world’s peace? We talked about it a lot without getting to a conclusion, until a woman stepped over to the bookshelf and hauled out a reference book. I don’t remember the exact words, but here’s my paraphrase:

“God’s ‘peace’ is the union of the human will with God’s will so that no competing will or desire can enter.”

The “desire” they refer to clearly does not let us off the hook; Jesus would have liked to avoid the Crucifixion if possible; the prospect was so dreadful He fell on the ground and sweated blood. He gave the full consent of His will for His own crucifixion; with no reservations; nothing held back. He was at peace with the will of the Father, but it did not take the pain away.

We must remember that this is the “peace” He left us. Not the world’s peace, which would free us from worldly sorrows and pains if it could. But a “peace” that means one’s heart is “untroubled”; is a still as a quiet pool, settled with total faith; unflinching trust, in acceptance of the Father’s will, no mater what storms of worldly loss, sorrow, and pain are raging around it.

Now, please consider the word “comfort”. All right; if there is a good, loving, all-powerful God, and He does choose to let these dreadful things happen, then why does He let us suffer so? If all our losses and sufferings will be made up fully in Heaven, then why does He allow us to suffer so dreadfully here? Why doesn’t He comfort us? If a loved one dies, and we suffer from their absence and sorrow for their destruction, it is said that we need not trouble ourselves; they are in Heaven and we will be reunited with them. Then why does God not let us contact them, and be reassured as to their happiness, and be relieved of the pain of separation? If He is so good and powerful, can’t He give us that comfort?

But the “comfort” spoken of in the Gospels, for instance when, eventually, an angel came to Jesus in Gethsemane and “comforted” him, is not the comfort I referred to in the paragraph above. “Comfort” comes from Latin. “Com”, to be with; and “fortis”; strength. So to give someone “comfort” is to be with them and strengthen them so that they can endure their grief or pain. It’s more like nutrition than opiates. The astounding and terrifying reality is that the comfort that our loving Savior offers us is to give us strength to endure our pain and grief, not take any of it away.

You may have seen a popular illustration of the angel comforting Jesus in the garden. The angel is holding Jesus’ head on his shoulder, with his arms around the Lord’s shoulder, comforting him like a parent cuddling a child. This picture, though done with great feeling, makes me suspicious. It smacks too much of the idea of “comfort” as a painkiller. I much prefer a black-and-white illustration in an old 1923-vintage prayer book I inherited from my father. The illustration may have been quite a bit older; 19th Century. Jesus is on the left, facing right, kneeling and leaning on a stone with His hands clasped in prayer and supplication. On the right, facing Jesus, is the Angel. Not holding Jesus’ head on his shoulder. But proffering a cup—the chalice of the Passion; the Cup of Fire. And on the angel’s face is an expression not of sympathy but of gentle but stern insistence. The angel is not meant to be at all cruel. But in this angel’s face and demeanor is no reluctance at all to urge Jesus to suffering. This angel is there to bear with Jesus, with no qualms at all about the amount of suffering Jesus will have to endure. It is for the will of God, after all, and none of God’s angels ever have any qualms or hesitations about that. From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary entry on Comfort: “…from Late Latin confortare to strengthen greatly, from Latin com- + fortis strong.”

Now, let me address the word “agony”. Of the three words I am trying to clarify here, this is probably the most misunderstood in terms of how Christianity uses them.

From the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary entry on “Agony”: “1 a: intense pain of mind or body : anguish, torture b: the struggle that precedes death”

This is pretty much the sum total of the current usage; very great pain, and that’s all. Therefore when we hear “The Agony in the Garden”, we quite naturally think that the words refer to the very great pain Jesus suffered there. It’s too easy to go from there and think that the significance of His experience there was that He felt a very great deal of pain at accepting God’s will. There is a good lesson for us in this, of course; if it’s painful to accept God’s will we should do so anyway. Fine.

But there’s another, deeper point that we miss due to the contemporary usage of “agony” to simply mean “great suffering”

Take a look at this additional material from the Merriam-Webster entry on “Agony”: “2: a violent struggle or contest3: a strong sudden display (as of joy or delight) : outburst” And: “Etymology:
Middle English agonie, from Late Latin agonia, from Greek agōnia struggle, anguish, from agōn gathering, contest for a prize, from agein to lead, celebrate — more at agent “

Okay; from “AGENT”: “…from Latin, present participle of agere to drive, lead, act, do; akin to Old Norse aka to travel in a vehicle, Greek agein to drive, lead
Date:
15th century
1: one that acts or exerts power2 a: something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause”

In the original Greek, “agon” was the struggle an athlete went through to push themselves to the absolute best they could, despite all the resistance of their pain and fatigue. Eventually they used the word “agony” to refer to any struggle between our lower selves and appetites and our higher selves. To refuse to eat or drink too much could be an “agony”, if it cost you sufficient pain. “Agony” was considered to be the truest expression of one’s virtue. It was considered natural that you had a part of you that did not want to do what you should, and that to go against that part of yourself to make yourself do your best would cost you pain; and the truest virtue was displayed when this pain was greatest.

This is why the Olympic Games were the most sacred festival in Greece, and while athletic games were considered the very most reverent rites to hold at a funeral. It is in the struggle to make your own body obey your will despite all pain and fatigue and resistance that your virtue, your will to overcome your worst self and give yourself entirely to the gods, was most clearly shown.

If a man was wounded in battle and lying there in terrible pain, and someone said to one of these Greeks that he was “in agony”, they would say, “No he’s not; he’s in pain.” At Guadalcanal, one time there was a massive Japanese attack against a thin line of Marines. A heavy machine gun held a vital part of that line, and a grenade or artillery shell killed both loaders and blinded the gunner. He continued loading and firing for hours, working by feel. There is a detail of this incident that makes it relevant to this: He had to change barrels frequently (a characteristic of air-cooled machine guns). A pair of asbestos gloves were provided for this, since the barrel to be removed is generally as hot as a soldering iron. The gunner could not find the gloves. So he changed the barrels with his bare hands, burning them terribly, and continued loading and firing all night.

“Now, that’s an agony,” the ancient Greeks would have said admiringly.

In ancient Sparta, there were only two circumstances in which you would get a marked grave with your name on it (or a memorial stone if you were buried elsewhere). First, if you were a man and died in battle. Second, if you were a woman and died in childbirth. Your agony was honored. Not the pain you suffered. But that you suffered it to the death, by your own free will, for the survival and future of your community.

So the “agony” the writers of the Gospels were thinking of when they say Jesus “fell into an agony” was not at all what we would normally think of these days. He did not simply find himself in a terrible pain of fearful anticipation, and then endure and triumph over it. That would have been plenty, of course. Rather He felt the temptation to falter, to draw back, from His utter abandonment of himself to the Father’s will, and He brought His own will to bear against that part of himself, His human weakness, and fought it so hard that He caused himself to sweat blood. It was an agony like a Greek at a funeral game, desperate to not let the memory of a dead friend or relative be dishonored by any holding back on his part.

It was not the passive experience of great pain. It was a very active struggle, with connotations of leadership, of agency, where the desire to do what was right was held to to the uttermost limit of pain.

…Well.

I guess it’s not hard to see why these ideas are not so familiar these days, with our culture of hedonism and entitlement. So pervasive is this that even quite devout Christians find it a struggle to keep these things in mind. It takes a considerable effort of study and careful consideration to keep from losing track of these things in our current cultural environment. It took me considerable reading and study on my own to learn these things. I cannot fault the preaching at my church; how much can the best priest teach in one homily a week, given how contrary this is to the entire mainstream cultural environment?

I believe that our God is not cruel. He is kind; kinder than we can ever comprehend; kinder far beyond the kindest human we ever meet in our lives today. And I also find that the reality of His kindness is very much at odds with a culture of hedonism and entitlement; a culture that thinks of “comfort” merely as relief from pain; of “peace” to be an absence of any disturbance or difficulty at all; of “agony” to be nothing but an misfortune imposed by outside circumstances.

God wants us to ultimately be eternally happy and free from all suffering with Him in Heaven. In the meantime, here on Earth, we are offered His kindness to deal with difficulties here. He offers comfort, which from Him means to give us strength to endure our sufferings no matter how severe and protracted. He left us His peace, which means our hearts can rest in the will of the Father no matter how much pain and fear we are going through. And He left us the example of His agony, which was to persist against all our contrary impulses in consenting to the Father’s will. We are promised grace to help us in these things, and given a Church with sacraments, liturgy, teaching, everything we need in abundance, to reach for God’s grace in our lives.

I have the example of Jesus to tell me that it’s okay to find the necessity of giving consent to God’s will can involve truly dreadful pain. Of course, it means to act in obedience, but it also means to consent in our hearts, as Jesus did in Gethsemane.

Surely it’s dreadful for my friend, whose father is so ill, not only to go on doing housework while precious and possibly limited time she might have to spend with her father here on Earth drains irretrievably away. Surely it’s dreadful that she is called not only to do this, but to say, as she washes dishes, does laundry, and diapers little ones, and the days drain away forever, but to say as she does so. “Thy will be done;” to say in her hear to God that she accepts and consents to His will in this.

That is her “agony”. Many the Jesus of Gethsemane be with her. May His angel comfort her in the third hour of her grief.

And while I cannot begin to compare my pain with hers, I find it dreadful to consider what she’s going through, and to have to turn to the Father and also say, “Thy will be done.”

Truly I cannot compare my pain with hers. I just broke down sobbing for a few seconds. But I live alone. She does not have the luxury of allowing herself to break down in front of her children. She can only do so in whatever private moments she can steel. Otherwise she has to hold in her tears no matter how much she needs to release them.

That’s dreadful.

God is kind. His will be done.

LogEyed Roman

2007-11-27T02:06:00.000-08:00

Roman in Wonderland #2 : British visitors

Another foray in Wonderland. For this visit I was drawn in by the footsteps of a couple of very distinguished Brits: A journalist and writer of books named Melanie Phillips, and also Tony Blair himself. It was in an article Ms. Phllips wrote for the Daily Mail.

You can pop through this particular mirror here:

http://tinyurl.com/yv3ten

Here are some choice bits:

Oh God! Tony Blair has confessed to religious faith being "hugely important" to him during his tenure as Prime Minister.The full force of the secular inquisition will not hesitate in pronouncing its anathema upon him for committing this heresy of religious belief.For as Mr Blair also admitted, he was previously unable to be open about this key element of his character because "Frankly, people do think you're a nutter".

And:

It is almost as if Christianity is fine - with its high-minded concerns about poverty, the environment, war and so forth - as long as no one believes in it.

And!

Moreover, as the influence of religion has declined in Britain, far from becoming more rational, people have become more credulous, superstitious and irrational than ever before.

Tony Blair had to conceal his faith to avoid political damage and possibly interfere with his ability to accomplish vital tasks. This has been challenged, reasonably enough; but the fact that expressing orthodox Christian faith brings terrible hostility is pretty clear.

What makes this particularly Wonderful (see my 27 July 2007 entry for a discussion of how I’m using that word here) is that this is the same place where National Health now pays unblinkingly for shamans and crystal therapy. (Just imagine the uproar if someone suggested they pay for Roman Catholic exorcisms, or Eastern Orthodox blessed healing oil!) This is the same place where, when an Imam preached using murder to force Islam on Britain—in sermons in the street so that the streets were illegally blocked, every day for months—the police took action against these gravely criminal acts. Blocking the streets was of course illegal, and openly advocating murder is a very severe felony in Britain. So the police stood around and protected the Imam and his mob of thugs from curious onlookers and people with cameras!!! I’m not making this up!

Ms. Phillips’ article also mentions very distinguished scientists who question the scientific basis of random evolution. Okay; so they are attacked by the “secular inquisition” for their “heresy”. But what makes it really Wonderful is that the Secular Torquemadas and Cotton Mathers publicly characterize them as “fundamentalists” who believe the world was created in six days—and get away with it, instead of immediately being laughed off stage once and for all. In fact these egregious liars succeed in forcing some of these innocent scientific dissenters out of their posts, rather than losing theirs for their flagrant lies and terrorism.

In my first report on my visit to Wonderland, I spoke of what my friend DarwinCatholic called the “promiscuity prudes.” Here I find their friends, the Un-Witch Hunters; the Secular Fundamentalists; the Materialist Inquisitors, who might as well be trundling racks around and waving hot pincers as they attack the enemies of the Holy God of Materialist Progress, and the Creed that Human Reason is the Infallible Guide to Truth and Morality.

Christopher Dawkins, apparently with a straight face, recently said in a debate that science can ultimately answer any question we want to ask. He didn’t say, “I believe” this. Religious fanatics do not say “I believe this.” They say, “This is the truth.” They take no responsibility for their beliefs.

Of course, the idea that science can answer every question does not now nor has it ever had any basis at all in real science. In fact, as Jacob Bronowski pointed out in an episode of his marvelous series “The Ascent of Man” (which I recommend strongly, despite the fact that I regard Bronowski himself as having been a confused secularist at bottom, in his ultimate faith in unaided human reason and his atheism, or certainly at least agnosticism); the one titled “Quest for Certainty”, one of the clearest conclusions to emerge from science in the 20th Century is that certainty is not available through science. (The Church Fathers knew that a long time ago. Events have proved them correct. Again.)

But Christopher Dawkin’s faith in science is just that: Faith, not science.

The militant atheists claim to be on the side of reason as against religion. But their ludicrous arguments against religion prove that they do not really have a case against it, and their conspicuous lack of any proof against the Supernatural in general and God in particular, disclose what they do their best to avoid admitting, to themselves in particular, I believe: Their position is in fact of one conflicting faith against another. The faith they hate and want to eradicate is traditional, orthodox religion. The worst is Christianity, of course, and the greatest enemy of theirs in Christianity is its largest, strongest, and most uncompromising element on earth: The Roman Catholic Church. Against this, they pretend to be on the side of reason, when in fact they promulgate a competing faith: The idolatry of unaided human reason, and its most adored and worshipped creed and brotherhood: Science and scientists.

“Idolatry” was forbidden first in Scripture as the worship of “graven images.” But the principal behind this was not merely not to worship individual objects in the material world, but not to worship the work of your own hands. By extension, a friend of mine pointed out to me, that means any creation of man, including abstract ones like “science”. An idolater takes his or her own creation, or the creation of another human being, and sets it up as divine; attributes to it a greater source of power, above all, but often wisdom and superhuman guidance, than can be attributed to the merely human creator.

Perhaps you can see where I’m going with this. For all the dazzling and often useful accomplishments of science, not only is science always ultimately uncertain and subject to future experience but it cannot by its nature be any better than the human beings practicing and applying it. And yet Dawkins is sure that it can answer all questions. Bronowski is not quite so optimistic. He knows that the belief in certainty is in fact contrary to what science has taught us and therefore contrary to reason. (Are you listening, Dawkins? Hitchens?)

So the Idolaters of Science take their place beside the Prudes of Promiscuity, declaring their absolute faith in the infallibility of their idol Science and their certainty that it can fix anything, answer any question; that when it falls short it can only mean it was not worshipped with enough zeal; and anybody who even states that they believe in anything else is a terrible enemy; obviously depraved and irrational, and a terrible threat to the divine order and rule of Science. All these dangerous heretics must be suppressed. For the good of Science, of course.

And your humble LogEyed Roman is very proud to share adventures in Wonderland with such distinguished fellow travelers as Tony Blair and Melanie Phillips.

Sincerely,

LogEyed Roman

2007-11-20T23:29:00.000-08:00

New persecution of Christians: They’re coming for us.

There is the very credible threat of a massive, organized, systematic persecution against Christians some time in the next generation; perhaps within a few years. I mean for all Christians; us in the rich, relatively peacful (since World War II!) West. A great persecution has been going on against Christians since the Armenian Genocide in World War I.

Hitchens and Dawson are bad enough, along with books like “The Da Vinci Code.” The widespread abandonment of real Christian faith and morals is bad enough. It is looking to get worse before it gets better. The strong movements of renewal in Christianity are wonderful and very encouraging, but as yet they encompass only a small minority of the entire population, and they do not include more than a tiny minority of the most influential classes: Politicians, educators, and especially the larger, “informal” education system—the news and entertainment media.

But it’s not just the amount but the kind of movement away from Christianity recently which is really alarming. The difference is the extent and virulence of direct attacks.

By “direct attack” I mean more than simply promoting values and beliefs at odds with Christianity. That has been going on at a steadily increasing rate since the Black Death. I am specifically referring to hostility to Christianity, especially taking the ominous new form of demonizing it; building an false image of it as a source and even the main source of history’s ills and of everything wrong today.

How many modern atheists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Fifty-one. One to put in the new light bulb and fifty to write books and make movies blaming Christianity for the fact that light bulbs burn out.

Ahem. Getting serious again: It’s easy to dismiss, say, Hitchens’ wild claims blaming Christianity for so many things, he is so transparantly irrational and prejudiced. He’s so far gone that when someone brought up Communism, especially the Soviet Union, he countered that they had in fact never eliminated Christianity—the never got rid of all Christians nor dissuaded them away from the faith. And that, apparantly, is the source of all the evils perpetrated by Communism!

This is as irrational, as silly, as some of the wild claims by anti-Semitism in the nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries.

Which is why we should worry. Setting aside our natural amusement at the utter silliness of so much of what is being said, we must remember that its very silliness is an alarming development. That people otherwise not obviously demented believe these things so easily is a sign that too many people are so frightened at certain things going on in the world that they then yield to fear so great that it overpowers their reason, and they are ripe for any fantasy of an easily isolated and attacked scapegoat.

And we’re “it”.

Don’t kid yourselves. It could happen here. Serious social and/or economic and/or military reverses could easily open the way for extremists to get in power.

Some of them already are.

Just the other day, Leftist activists in Mexico City stormed a service in the great cathedral, causing so much damage and fear the Catholic authorities have suspended all services there until the civil authorities can guarantee safety. Disagreeing with Christian social and political activities is nothing new. Systematically targeting any available Catholics to pressure the whole Church is an ominous development. As is the conspicuous silence of the mainstream media, who make so much of Americans disrespecting Muslims in Iraq.

Recently a Christian student at a university set up a card table outside a hall where a musical was being performed on his campus that portrayed the Last Supper as a homosexual orgy between Jesus and the Apostles. He was being totally peacful; simply protesting and offering an alternative view. As a result, he was forcibly committed for several days of “psychiatric evaluation”, on the basis that his position was so flagrantly homophobic that he had to be considered mentally ill.

There are many other examples I could give. One friend of mine, a very well educated and completely orthodox Jesuit, has remarked that he believes there is little chance of his dying of old age. He believes he is more likely to be martyred for his faith.

The threat is of persecution of the most bloody and totalitarian kind, replete with terror, coerced apostasy, Christians systematically pressured to betray one another, torture, “reeducation”.

Our top priority?

Not that we defend ourselves and the Faith, which of course we must.

Our top priority is not to become like the persecutors.

We must oppose this persecution if it comes. We must be prepared to die, if necessary, for our faith. (This must be done with discerning judgment, of course; pretending compliance to continue the work underground, or, especially, to protect the innocent, especially children, can be acceptable.) We must try to fight as best we can; setting the best example we possibly can of Christian faith and morality.

But this is the Forest and Mote blog, and I, the LogEyed Roman, am committed to make self correction always the highest priority.

Yielding to this persecution would be bad. Joining it willingly would be worse. But the worst thing we could do is to fight back with the same evil means; yielding to the temptation to suppress our enemies with ruthless force; silencing our enemies with terror. This would be all to easy, and it is all to common in history, including religious history; most particularly including Christian history.

Christ was never a doormat. He conspicuously does not let sinners, especially hypocrites, get away with it. But he always did it with the ultimate goal of their redemption, not their “suppression” or “defeat”.

I fear that a really bloody and terrible persecution is coming. The terror and violence has begun already. I hope all Catholics, and other Christians; any men of good will, who read this, also share a healthy fear of this danger. But what I need to really fear, and probably don’t fear enough, is for us to become like our enemies. During one terrible episode of public terror and destruction a few years ago, a friend was raging inside at the perpetrators. But his pastor said, “If you can’t see Christ in them, you are worse than they are."

Let us be careful. The persecution will continue and will get worse before it gets better. It could be very extreme. But our greatest danger is not even being martyred. That is death of the body. Our worst danger is returning hate for hate, persecution for persecution; becoming worse than our persecutors. That way lies death for eternity.

May God preserve us.

Very truly yours,

LogEyed Roman

2007-07-27T00:17:00.000-07:00

Roman in Wonderland

Now when Alice dropped down the rabbit hole, and, later, went through the looking glass, she was confronted with extremely obvious and very wonderful absurdities. “Wonderful”, especially when Carroll was writing, in fact simply means “capable of exciting wonder.” It was not necessarily good. I suspect some people think my coffee is wonderfully bad, especially those who do not appreciate coffee strong enough to qualify as biohazard. I have seem some people, not merely displeased, but blinking in genuine amazement when they tasted my coffee for the first time.

To the subject at hand: The wonders I’m thinking of today are less obvious than talking animals and the like, but to me, just as astonishing.

Yesterday I read an essay ("Girls Gone Mild") about girls returning to modesty in dress and chastity in conduct. The author, Wendy Shalit, was taken by surprise at the tongue lashings she received. One feminist critic, Feminist writer Katha Pollitt, called her “a twit”. Now Pollitt’s daughter, along with, guess who, Erica Jong’s daughter, are in college, and they repudiate their mothers’ sexual mores strongly. Molly Jong-Fast tried the lifestyle her mother advocated; declares it “utterly unsatisfying”; has abandoned her mother’s moral standards and even says she is embarrassed by her mother’s writings.

Wait, there’s more. This article got me onto a train of thought which has been developing in me for decades—and is one constellation of observations and experiences that brought me back to fully professing and practicing (however poorly) Roman Catholicism.

I had decades of first-hand contact with people committed to trying to achieve happiness and freedom through such “open” or “free” sex. In fact, so committed were these people that those who held contrary views—even those who did not criticize promiscuity or preach chastity, but simply wanted to quietly live chaster lives—were not simply considered wrong. They were routinely mocked, ridiculed, savagely attacked. And among one another, they not only praised freedom, in the form of exhibitionism and promiscuity, but they also were touchy and judgemental of one another; always on the lookout for signs of insufficient “freedom”.

Okay; what’s so wonderful about this?

I’m glad you asked.

No, it’s not nearly as obvious as a talking rabbit with a pocket watch. But in its way, it’s just as wonderful. I can remember, back in the seventies, a real moment of epiphany. Some friends of mine were speaking of a woman they knew and shared that they were concerned for her welfare and annoyed at her self-destructive conduct. Her offending actions? She had been, not remotely married, nor even engaged, but just “going steady” with the same boyfriend for nearly two years. She was going to “go stale”, one person said. At any rate, this behavior was shocking; they spoke of it gravely and with indignation.

In other words, they were SCANDALIZED.

Now who sees where I’m going with this?

They were scandalized. I stood there listening to them, and suddenly it came to me with a shock that their attitude towards sex was, in fact, a sort of puritanical prudery. They were just as judgemental, frightened, scornful, indignant; just as quick to take offence and be shocked, at people who professed or practiced different sexual mores from their own as the most obvious stereotypical blue-law 17th Century Puritans.

I was truly in shock. This was WONDERFUL. Once I realized that regarding the demeanor and remarks of these people, I realized that it characterized, to a greater or lesser extent, the entire “sexually liberated” community.

Take a look at the “girls gone mild” story I began with. Here we have two young women going off to college. What do they do, now that they are away from home and on their own? Why, they refuse to be happy with the sexual conventions they were brought up with. They experiment with Alternative Sexual Conduct! They end up rejecting their mothers’ sexual standards! They do this not only in their own conduct, but they also admit it publicly! Poor Erica Jong’s daughter even reiterated that she dearly loves her mother still, yet is “embarrassed” by her writings!

Yes, I am a Roman in Wonderland.

LogEyed Roman

2006-09-16T20:45:00.000-07:00

Forest and Mote

See http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2006/09/uncivilized-conduct.html about the hostile reactions in Islamdom regarding Pope Benedict XVI's recent criticisms of Islam.

Whatever Islam as an ideal is supposed to be, there have been, as with Christianity, problems in how it has been practiced, and some of these problems operate today on a large scale. Some have definite specific local cultural and historical underpinnings.

First of all, regarding Islamic "rage" of the kind showed by demonstrations, riots, strident rhetoric from leaders and sometimes terrorism or even large-scale military actions: These are generally orchestrated by cynical, manipulative leaders. Just recently the fuss about the cartoons about Islam is a good example. The cartoons came out FOUR MONTHS before the "spontaneous" riots and demonstrations. A number of the specific leaders who decided to go ahead and use the cartoons as a pretext for anti-Western activities have even been identified in the West. And of course the "spontaneous demonstrations" etc. that happened regarding the U. S. Embassy in Tehran in the 1980s were a real joke. It was so cynical that I have read of witnesses who said the demonstrators could tell when the news crews had sound equipment along with their cameras. If they didn't, the demonstrators would shake their fists, make their angry faces, wave their signs, and mouth their slogans--without making any sound. I'm not saying the "Arab Street" don't have any hostility toward the West already. They sure do. But that's where some more of the promlems come:

Second. There is a sensitivity to "saving face" in most of the Islamic World, especially in the Middle East, which is so pervasive, powerful and important it's often totally missed by Westerners; just "off the radar." But it's terribly important. Dennis Prager, the morning conservative talk-show host (the most cool-headed and rational, to my taste) has said that for too many Muslims today, saving face is so important it takes precedence over the truth. There's the case of the Saudi pilot who committed suicide and took a whole planeful of people with him--I forget whether he crashed his plane on other victims. Well, the evidence that yes, he did this, and acted alone, is overwhelming and unequivocal. But that has not stopped the spreading of alternative explanations--that's right; of either the U.S. or the Jews, or both, really being behind it. They actually say that it could not have been a Muslim because Muslims never commit suicide because it's against their religion. Yes, they do, and millions of Muslims in the Middle East have openly accepted this as truth. These are not inmates of mental hospitals, but otherwise normal people who can dress themselves and everything. Then of course there are the majority of Muslims who now believe that no Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks on America. I remember a woman--very gentle-spoken she was--a Muslim woman who called in to a radio station to say solemnly that she wanted to explain that it was the Jews who did 9/11 because Muslims would not do that, since it's against their religion, and also that over 1,000 Jews stayed away that day because they were all warned. When the radio man told her that in fact hundred of Jews died in the attack she was taken aback. Note again that this was not a believe in a superficially plausible version of the facts. The idea that "the Jews" by the millions all over the world could conspire on such a thing and not have thousands and thousand running to the press to expose the thing is just ludicrous, in addition to being a shocking hate-belief. Also the statement that of course Muslims would never to this since they are not supposed to is so ridiculous that you would expect the people who held it to be mentally ill, and in fact they are not; they are the common people all over the place, who would be incredibly kind and hospitable to you if you met them on the street, and who are often very well educated.

3. This overlaps a lot of what I said in (2) above. There's a big problem with cultural paranoia. In "What went wrong?", Bernard Lewis argues as follows: Especially in the 20th Century, the Islamic world has suffered a great deal of humiliation at Western hands. Not only culpable activity by the West--of which there has been plenty, of course--but factors such as that nearly all scientific, medical and other developments come from the West. Even the oil wealth has been discovered and developed with outside, mostly western, expertise. Lewis says that when you have a problem, you can ask, "What did we do wrong?" and then when you have come up with the answer to that, you can then ask, "What shall we do to correct it?" However, too many Muslims, he says, have asked a very different pair of questions. First, "Who did this to us?" When you come up with an answer, if you have really committed yourself to the position that this was done by outsiders and is "not your fault", then the next thing to do is to decide who to attack. The truth is that too much of Islam is in fact burdened by archaic and often repressive cultural forms which are utterly hostile to modernization, and those who are beneficiaries of this are naturally resistant to any change that threatenes their position, and such very proud people are not going to easily admit that their cultural, economic and political problems are in fact their fault more thay anyone else's. Many Saudis and others have been sent to Western universities. Many have been sent to study physics, for ominous reasons which require a whole separate set of different posts. But I read a report that said that when left to their own devices the overwhelming majority want to take the kind of business education that will let them be bosses. It was explained that there's still a tradition of not a three-tiered but a two-tiered social system. There's the people at the top, the top dogs and their families, and the rest are their servants, with much lower status and income. The lower tier includes not only skilled laborers but physicians, scientiests, engineers, and so on. They still have the idea that you are either a boss or a servant. And, of course, don't get me started on the status of women...

Anyhow. In conclusion, it's all too clear that there's no way Benedict XVI could make his very timely remarks without getting a violently hostile reaction. There is a huge power structure--more a cultural phenomenon than a united behind the scenes group or "conspiracy"--who are going to use every opportunity to inflame hatred of the West; to further their agendas and expand their power bases. There is going to be a lot of people taking the Pope's remarks as an attack. Now that I think of it, due to this "face saving" thing they have, the fact is that a lot of them are going to assume that the Holy Father intended this as an attack, since they will assume he knows being criticized is a loss of face to them. There is the sensitivity based on the underlying sense of doubt and humiliation about their own culture. Again, these last two will be used and inflamed by the really manipulative types.

I am horrified at just how uncaring some of these people can be. I remember a video with Osama Bin Laden laughing with some of his cohorts as they spoke of how a number of the hijackers on the 9/11 planes did not themselves know that they were on a suicide mission. Ha ha, what a thigh slapper.

The Holy Father was of course quite right, regardless of the gross overreaction. The excesses of Islam have to be confronted, and every effort has to be made to do so through dialogue and the attempt to be helpful. It's not like many others, except for George Bush and his all-too-few supporters, are doing this.

There's always the possibility that, if the Holy Father continues to speak reason and if enough others join him, that reason will prevail. But recent events show that this is very uncertain, and an uphill battle at best.

This is alarming, because Islamic violenc can't go on the way it has. It will either be contained--or it will get far, far worse.

LogEyed Roman

2006-08-15T23:56:00.000-07:00

Forest and Mote

I'd wanted to put more material in by now, but I find myself on a jobhunt. I've spent many hours at this keyboard in the last couple of weeks putting in online applications. I would rather have been putting together some of the posts I've been thinking of. Oh well. Life is what happens to us while we're trying to arrange something else.

Well, I hope to write on Mel Gibson; he really messed up with his anti semitic remarks; but he has never pretended to be a saint, and I see him as needing to get his wild drinking and temper under better control, not as a dangerous anti semite. But I have to agree with Michael Medved; MM thinks the accusations of antisemitism against Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" are totally overblown and baseless. However, he does say, without defending their excessive hysteria, that one can be understanding of his fellow Jews who are so upset at the film. Presumably, now, toward Gibson's outrageous mouthing off too. Beam and mote; like MM I can criticize those who get their unmentionables in such a twist about Mel Gibson. MG does not really give them a good reason for it, but if you understand the history of antisemitism, it makes it easier to sympathize with those who overreact even when one does not agree.

More detail in the near future, I hope.

LogEyed Roman

2006-08-07T23:47:00.000-07:00

QUOTES FOR TODAY

Serious quotes:

"As regards depression...I meant that the cause of depression is subjective, always. The Eternal Facts of Religion remain exactly the same, always. Therefore in depression the escape lies in dwelling upon the external truths that are true anyhow; and not in self-examination, and attempts at 'acts' of the soul that one is incapable of making at such a time.

...I would say that 'subjective prayer' and self-reproach, and dwelling on one's temporal and spiritual difficulties, is not good at such times, but that objective prayer, e.g. intercessions, adoration, and thanksgiving for the Mysteries of Grace, is the right treatment for one's soul. And of course the same applies to scruples of any kind."

--Robert Hugh Benson, adult convert to Roman Catholicism (from the Anglican priesthood!), quoted in Literary Converts, by Joseph Pearce.

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by mean of zeal,well-meaning but without understanding."-- Justice Louis O. Brandeis (Olmstead vs. United States)

Witty quotes:

Davis's Dictum:Problems that go away by themselves, come back by themselves.

Shirley MacLaine died today in a freak psychic collision today. Two freaksin a van [Oh no!! It's the Copyright Police!!] Her aura-charred body was laid to rest after a eulogy by Jackie Collins, fellow member of SAFE [Societyof Asinine Flake Entertainers]. Excerpted from some of his more quotable comments:"Truly a woman of the times. These times, those times...""A Renaissance woman. Why in 1432...""A man for all seasons. Really..." After the ceremony, Shirley thanked her mourners and explained how delightfulit was to "get it together" again, presumably referring to having her now deadbody join her long dead brain.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time tomake it shorter.-- Blaise Pascal

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention,with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla.-- Mitch Ratcliffe

Join in the new game that's sweeping the country. It's called "Bureaucracy".Everybody stands in a circle. The first person to do anything loses.

For adult education nothing beats children.

Frivolous quotes:

Real-Life Courtroom Quote #3:Q: When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and wereable, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not togo, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, withhim to the station?MR. BROOKS: Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.

"It's curtains for you, Mighty Mouse! This gun is so futuristic that even *I* don't know how it works!"-- from Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse

"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect "Hungry."-- a Larson cartoon

audophile, n:Someone who listens to the equipment instead of the music.

2006-07-27T01:06:00.000-07:00

Dear Blogosphere:

Good day.

Allow me to introduce myself.

I am a Roman Catholic. I am in my second half-century. I spent most of my first half-century away from the Church, so I am, as some say, a "revert" rather than a convert.

Anyway, I intend this blog to be my private way to mouth off, I mean my earnest and selfless attempt to make the world a better place, especially regarding what I regard to be the important issues.

My Catholicism is going to be central to this blog. To clarify: I am committed and orthodox (a serious Catholic though not a very good one). This means I strictly follow the teachings of the Church in all moral questions, which for me includes all social questions, which includes everything about family, politics, peace, etc.

Regarding the name I am using and the title of this blog, here is what it's for: It's my committment to the principal that, in order to be in a moral position (i.e., to avoid hypocrisy) and to be clear-minded enough to be fair and objective, one must follow the command of Jesus Christ: To first take the beam out of your own eye before you criticize your brother for the mote in his eye.

As a Christian, I regard these words not as advice but as peremptory orders. No, I don't expect to follow them perfectly, but I state that insofar as I do not, I will be at fault.

I believe the rule applies to everyone, Christian or not; orthodox or otherwise. I believe that the Beam and Mote principal describes a universal moral and psychological principal which affects all humanity whether they know it or not.

Here is the central text to this principle; Matthew 7:1-5:

1 2 "Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
2
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
3
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
4
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye?
5
You hypocrite, 3 remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

Now, for me, the "judgement" referred to is not simply honest disagreement, even if you are challenging others morally and not just about honest errors. This "judgement" which we must eschew is characterized by an attitude of pride--specifically, of taking a position of moral superiority. I see two moral problems with this. First of all, if we truly condemn another fellow sinner, by which I mean not just say they are wrong but take to ourselves the divine prerogative to judge them beyond all doubt, and to take a position of contempt and dismissal, we are assuming first a degree of certain knowledge of their true intentions that in fact only God can have. Second of all, we are assuming an uncharitable position, more concerned with condemning them than with their correction and redemption. Both these are intuitively wrong to me on the surface. To a Christian, this position is mortally sinful; we are usurping God's knowledge and His mercy.

Okay. Now this has been clear to me for decades. Even in my apostate years, the principle was sound

But only very recently, just a year ago, a brief remark by a friend of mine--a Catholic woman who is nearly 20 years younger than me and is far my senior in the Faith--clarfied the second part.

For all those decades, I heard the words that after you have taken the beam from your own eye, you will see clearly to remove the mote (speck; whatever) in your brother's eye, without taking much note of them. Then you will see clearly? Just a figure of speech, I thouhgt. But my friend pointed out that Jesus (as usual) meant exactly what he said. If we are harboring some fault of our own, and have not repented of it, it will in fact cloud our judgement and perception. A simple example: If we have someone close to us who is too defensive when we try to complain about some conduct of theirs, well, the truth is not everyone is willing to be criticized. But very often, they get defensive because their heart is full of some pain or other due to some kind of injustice they feel has been done to them, and they get too angry to listen cooly. Whether we have contributed to their pain or not, it is far more effective to be honest with ourselves first; to set aside our own hurt and anger and listen to them first; try to understand their position, and make clear to them that we hear them and respect their views and feelings, even if we may disagree with them. Not only will they be far more likely to really hear our complaints if they are made to feel their own position is finally understood and respected (which can take a long time if there is a lot of pain involved). But not until we have paid enough attention to them can we criticize them in such a way that they can take our criticisms seriously. Without first earnestly examining our own perception--checking our own eye for beams--we will be unable to actually even perceive their difficulties with any accuracy. My friend who pointed this out to me does anti-abortion counselling. These counsellors in the Church are carefully trained to first show their concern for the feelings and needs of the women they counsel. Otherwise it becomes highly unlikely to get through to them at all. "They have to believe that you care before they will care what you believe," she said.

Finally, it's not true that if you are a sinner yourself you cannot talk to others about their sins. Jim Brown, the football player turned actor, had a business (I don't know if he still does) mediating violent disputes between gang members (and possibly other groups; I don't know). I saw part of a special on this. There was an astounding scene of him with two opposing groups of gang members in a room actually being able to calm their murderous rage (there had been murders between them, even of relatives) and make peace.

Later an interviewer asked him about one obvious question: He has been violent himself in the past; has even assaulted family members. How can he talk to others about their violence. Gently, cooly, he remarked that he certainly does not deny his violent past nor pretend it does not matter.

He said that if you try to do that, to "correct" people and come across "rightous", you will get nowhere. Why should you? They can tell you don't respect them. Why should they listen to you?

So. Let me see if I can wind this up with an example. Peace is an issue I'd like to address. Iraq and Lebanon are obvious topics; Iran, North Korea--you probably know the drill already. I believe many critcs of Israel and the USA--especially of George W. Bush and his supporters--are unfair and dangerously mistaken. I could rush forward with a long tirade about this right now. (Writer's block is not my problem. Writer's excess is.) But justice AND peace can be better served.

What I really need to do is consider the criticisms more fully; take the time to listen; set aside my impatience at their apparent injustice and irrationality and my anxiety about the danger and injustice they seem to promote, and try to deepen my understanding of the concerns of the critics. Then, insofar as there are genuine criticisms that can be aimed at Bush and at Israel, to do so. Now of course there are those whose irrational prejudice and malice will not be allayed by this. But then I will be in a far more credible position to call them on it. There are those who can be reached. It's surprising how, especially after a delay, some truly hardened positions can be changed.

And there's yet another step of the same principal: Even when I am taking their sides, before I criticize Bush or Israel, I need to examine myself; check myself for prejudice, malice, self-rightousness, lack of charity.

By the way, "first" does not always mean chronologically first, though that's a good safe approach. What it really means is that it has to be first in priority. Justice, honesty, charity, must come first, and I do not believe I can simply automatically trust my good intentions. Not ever. It will require a real committment to try as best I can for humility. "Don't be rightous", as Jim Brown might say it.

And, dear readers, I do not believe I can trust your good intentions automatically either. Be prepared; I reserve the right to call you on it not just when you are honestly mistaken, but when I think you might in fact be yielding to anger, prejudice, or some other moral fault. I cannnot expect you to take me seriously if I do this with a "rightous" attitude.

Now I can explain fully the name of this blog, and my chosen username. I'm sure many of you have guessed. "Forest and Mote" acknowledges that I have not just a log but a whole forest in my eye, and I need to be diligent about clearing it out if I am to accomplish the purpose of this blog--which really is to try to make a contribution. I am "LogEyed Roman"; "Roman" becuase I'm Catholic, of course; and "LogEyed" to acknowledge up front that I personally, and not just my "side" on various issues, have many chronic faults and shortcomings that need to be not only worked on but, above all, fully acknowledged. When I don't do this, I fall into prejudice and injustice. I will in fact do this. I only hope that, with God's help, I do enough brush clearance so that my contribution is on balance more positive than negative.

Very sincerely yours,

LogEyed Roman
July 27, 2006